Help us reach our end-of-year support goal!

Your support, financial or otherwise, is what keeps the 'Geek online.
Only
23 days
left to get bonus GeekGold!
- learn more.
"BGG is the #1 resource for the table top gaming community."
-
Jesse Schellenberg (cfsjess)

Iam a Kickstarter , I like a more subdued map ,but its alright,the card art,yikes ,really do not care for it.

Just received my copy today. I like the board art, but agree that the card art isn't great. I'm really looking forward to playing the game.

My problem with the game is the component quality. I hope Knight Works will not use this particular printer again. The card quality is very poor, the misprint cards sound like a manufacturer error, and the valleys in the board are ugly, unnecessary, and I worry they may fail over time. Also both of my player aid boards were warped and stinky out of the box, common with cheaper Chinese printers.

I understand the printer told the Knight Works team that with a multifold board these valleys were common and had to happen. This is obviously not true, as just one example I received the Scythe kickstarter not long ago and it has an absolutely huge board with no valleys.

1- The game board is gorgeous and looks even better with the wooden bits on it. The icons on the board do a good job serving as reminders of various rules too.

2- The card art is disappointing when compared to the board, but it is serviceable. It is nowhere near as bad as early Ascension art or what you get in the Legendary Encounters games from Upper Deck.

3- The rule book is bad. Like real bad. Like it was written by war gamer or someone familiar with technical manuals. It is extremely difficult to learn the game from the rules. You can't even read the first page or two without being bombarded with terms and mechanics that AREN'T EXPLAINED UNTIL SEVERAL PAGES LATER!!! The rules as written require you to read cover to cover more then once in order to get how the game functions. Things are not laid out in a logical manner to walk you through the game. It works great as a resource once you know how to play the game, but it does a horrible job teaching the game. Have you seen what Fantasy Flight does with all its games now? They release 2 instruction sets. One to teach the game, and one as a rules reference. Its like we were given the rules reference, but no teaching guide.

If written well it actually speeds up your ability to get into the game. I can't tell you how many times I had to re-read paragraphs and cross reference sections when reading through these rules. That is a sure fire sign of poor rules layout.

Sokadr wrote:

No thanks, I'll just buckle down and learn the rules.

*Rolls eyes*

If the rules were well written you wouldn't have to "buckle down". A good set of instructions isn't just something you can use to learn the game for yourself, but it is something you can use to teach the game. The rules here are of no use to teach a game.

Sokadr wrote:

You want to see some awful rules? Check the first edition War of the Ring rules. But you know I learned them.

You offer a logical fallacy. Just because there are other bad rule sets doesn't make these rules any good.

I have high expectations for game rules (and you should too). There are far too many good resources (blogs, podcasts, videos, etc.) out there that explain how to properly write rule books for games. Writing rules without doing homework on how to is like putting a board game on Kickstarter without first reading Jamey Stegmaier's book/blog.

Curious to see what all the fuss was about, I just downloaded and read the rulebook. I don't have the game in front of me (hasn't arrived yet) to test the rules, but from my quick read everything seems fairly straightforward.

The rulebook is broken up into a number of sections that seem logically ordered;

1. Overview of game, component list, and game setup2. Overview and structure of the game's turn flow3. Detailed description of actions that can be performed in a turn4. Game end and victory conditions

I believe the only difference between this type of rulebook and, say, FFG rulebooks is that FFG would split off #1 and #2 into a "Quickstart" rulebook. Historically, I've found this to cause more problems than anything else. If you refer to the forums, people are constantly complaining that some info was found in the Quickstart or the Reference book.

This game is not particularly complex so personally, I don't want to have to mess around with 2 separate books in order to learn and play the game. My suggestion is that if you're having a difficult time getting into the game, perhaps it might be more efficient to simply refer to some of the good review videos that give a good overview about the game.

...Writing rules without doing homework on how to is like putting a board game on Kickstarter without first reading Jamey Stegmaier's book/blog.

Do you have any good resources to read? I have written rules for a few games, and am writing one of the more lengthy rulesets now. I am always, always looking to raise my game. Please send via PM so as to not take this thread off topic.

"If written well it actually speeds up your ability to get into the game. I can't tell you how many times I had to re-read paragraphs and cross reference sections when reading through these rules. That is a sure fire sign of poor rules layout."

And I've not experienced much re-reading or issues with cross referencing at all...does that mean the rules are well laid out?

My experience of 'Quick Start Rules' and Extended Play Examples mirror Evil Bob's: they tend to create more issues than they clear up.

"If the rules were well written you wouldn't have to "buckle down". A good set of instructions isn't just something you can use to learn the game for yourself, but it is something you can use to teach the game. The rules here are of no use to teach a game."

Being a bit melodramatic, aren't we? I suspect we'll see a great majority of the owners of this game who, like myself, will not only use these RAW to learn the game but to teach it as well. I expect to do my fair share in learning the game (ie 'buckle down'); this rules set won't be an impediment to that at all.

"You offer a logical fallacy. Just because there are other bad rule sets doesn't make these rules any good."

I offered no such thing. I did offer a comparison and can offer another: Space Hulk: Death Angel – The Card Game. The original RAW for that game were awful. A friend brought them to me because he had almost given up and hoped I could make heads or tails of them. I did in a couple hours and agreed with him that a helluva game was beneath all that, one I'm glad to have in my collection today.

"I have high expectations for game rules (and you should too)."

Over the years I've gotten away from such expectations and you should too. Less stressful that.

"There are far too many good resources (blogs, podcasts, videos, etc.) out there that explain how to properly write rule books for games."

Coming from an era in which there were no blogs, podcasts, videos, etc., much less any on how to 'correctly' write rules, well...let's just say I've a whole different perspective on this.

"Writing rules without doing homework on how to is like putting a board game on Kickstarter without first reading Jamey Stegmaier's book/blog.)"

I don't see any evidence to support the 'no homework' claim. And does that stuff about Stegmaier's book/blog apply to purchasers of such deprived material?

...Writing rules without doing homework on how to is like putting a board game on Kickstarter without first reading Jamey Stegmaier's book/blog.

Do you have any good resources to read? I have written rules for a few games, and am writing one of the more lengthy rulesets now. I am always, always looking to raise my game. Please send via PM so as to not take this thread off topic.

Thanks.

If you are interested in learning more about resources for learning how to "do" rules better, you should do the following:

Received my copy today but only had a couple of minutes to look at it. The board is beautiful and has a great texture. I also like that the board is pretty compact...

hmmm...this is silly but...so now that I think about it I'm not sure I folded it back the same way it came. Was the map facing exposed on both sides when folded? Anyone care to give folding instructions? The creases don't seem to be completely obvious on which way they should fold.